Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it is a 'destructive write operation' and 'requires confirm=true', which reinforces annotations but also adds a specific behavioral requirement (confirmation parameter) not present in annotations. Some additional value, but not extensive beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then limitations. No waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given annotations cover safety profile and schema covers parameters, the description adds the confirm requirement and endpoint. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., cascading deletions) or return behavior, though no output schema exists. Adequate but minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the requirement of confirm=true, but holiday_id semantics are not elaborated. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Deletes a holiday') and even names the underlying endpoint GET /holidays/delete/:holiday_id, which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_timeoff, delete_event, and delete_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the destructive nature and confirm=true requirement, which gives some usage context, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., update_holiday, list_holidays) or state when to use vs. not use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.